The NFL has announced that as of this Sunday all fans attending games will be subject to a patdown "from the ankles up". The NFL is implementing these enhanced searches in accordance with their new security guidelines, according to USAToday:
The NFL is asking all fans attending to "be patient" in anticipation of longer lines into the stadiums. The Indianapolis Colts issued a press release stating "Guests may refuse inspections; however, management reserves the right to refuse entry".
I guess there's no "opt-out" like at the airports. Not in Indy, at least.
This coinicides with the NFL's cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security during last year's Superbowl. According to a DHS press release:
Over the past six months, DHS has worked with its federal, state, local and private sector partners, as well as the Department of Justice, to expand the "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign and the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative—an administration effort to train state and local law enforcement to recognize behaviors and indicators related to terrorism, crime and other threats; standardize how those observations are documented and analyzed; and expand and enhance the sharing of those reports with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and DHS—to communities throughout the country. The "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign has recently been launched in Minnesota and New Jersey, as well as to more than 9,000 federal buildings nationwide, Walmart, Mall of America, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, Amtrak, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the sports and general aviation industries, and state and local fusion centers across the country.
Hmm. Walmart. Mall of America. Hotels. Train stations. Sports stadiums.
CBS New York reported in May of 2011 that because terrorists plan retaliation for Osama Bin Laden's death, checkpoints at "soft targets" like stadiums, malls and department stores may "soon become the norm":
Of course, DHS head Janet Napolitano says the "If you see something, say something" campaign is not Big Brother. I wonder if she has read the comments section of the following article:
Now anyone who has read this blogger's posts knows I do not believe the official story of 9/11. Consequently, I also don't buy into this "War on Terror" and this need to feel secure by having TSA agents stick their hands down all sorts of places they shouldn't be. But let's say for a moment that you DO believe the 9/11 fairytale and the justification for increased security. You have to ask yourself - "Is this freedom? Is this liberty?" How is it that checkpoints across the spectrum of American life are equivalent to "The Land of The Free and The Home of The Brave"?
I know there are folks who will say "well, terror is real and extremists target trains and large events to 'do their evil', so this increased security, although somewhat invasive, is neccesary". I can see that logic, but again, that's assuming you believe in the "official" stories of all the terror events post 9/11. If you do, then maybe you want to check these links out:
The Times Online reported back in 2004 that the man accused of supplying the explosives to "Al quaeda" in the Madrid train bombings had the personal phone number of the head of Spain's Civil Guard Bomb Squad, or Tedax. Two of the other men implicated were also revealed to be police informers:
Kurt Haskell is a Detroit attorney who was a passenger on the day of the "foiled" Christmas terror plot and witnessed the "underwear bomber" try to get on the flight without a passport. Haskell claims the bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was escorted through the boarding process and onto the plane by a "sharp dressed man" he believes was a US government agent. Haskell also quotes a Detroit-area news articles that states:
Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab’s visa wasn’t taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would’ve foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida threats against the United States.
So Americans are sacrificial lambs for the intelligence agencies in their quest to keep us safe from terrorist attacks? Hmm. You can read more about this on Haskell's blog:
I don't buy this terror shit, and in my opinion, neither should you. Thats not to say that there aren't evil people who plot to kill innocent bystanders to make a political statement, but it seems to me that these events, used by government and the media to justify enhanced security measures, don't seem to have much legitimacy. When I look at all this, in addition to the overwhelming evidence that the official story of 9/11 is bogus, I can clearly see the program that has been rolled out and is being slowly implemented across this once free nation. Its called a police state. Americans somehow were taught that this could never happen here, but its here. We either unite and refuse these Orwellian measures, or we are all slaves. Period. Its like what JFK once said:
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.